V v V & Anor

Where disputed allegations of domestic abuse lead to a fact-finding hearing, existing interim child-contact arrangements must be reviewed. The court must decide whether contact remains in the child’s interests and whether it exposes the child or the other parent to an unmanageable risk of harm. The assessment must address the likely physical, emotional and psychological effects of contact, the impact on the alleging parent’s care of the child, and measures needed to minimise risk. An earlier agreement to overnight contact does not determine the interim position once fact-finding has been ordered. Serious allegations and their potential emotional or psychological impact may make overnight contact unsafe pending determination, even where unsupervised daytime contact remains appropriate.

The appellant mother appealed against an order made by Recorder Sharp KC on 24 March 2025. The Recorder directed a fact-finding hearing concerning allegations of domestic abuse but continued alternate-weekend overnight contact between the child and her father, while suspending holiday contact. The arrangements had originally been made largely by consent in September 2024.

The mother argued that contact should be limited to the Guardian’s recommendation of unsupervised daytime contact pending fact-finding. The central issue was whether the Recorder had adequately assessed the risks arising from continuing overnight contact after directing a fact-finding hearing.

1. Appeal allowed. The order for alternate-weekend overnight contact was discharged. Unsupervised contact was instead ordered on alternate Tuesdays after school until 6pm and alternate Saturdays from 9.15am to 3.15pm.
2. An appeal is by way of review. A decision may be wrong because of an error of law, an evidential conclusion unavailable to the judge, failure to give proper weight to a significant matter, undue weight to another matter, or an exercise of discretion outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement and plainly wrong: G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] UKHL 13. The appellate court should be cautious before interfering with factual findings and evaluative decisions: Fage UK Ltd & Anor v Chobani UK Ltd & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 5.
3. The Recorder was right to direct fact-finding. The allegations, the previous findings, and the potential impact of domestic abuse on the child justified clear findings before the later welfare and risk evaluation.
4. Once fact-finding was ordered, the interim contact arrangements required review. The prior agreement to overnight contact was made in materially different circumstances, when no fact-finding hearing had been directed.
5. The Recorder identified potential psychological and emotional risks to the child but did not fully assess whether overnight contact could safely be managed in light of the serious previous findings and the allegations awaiting determination. The gravity of the allegations and their potential impact made continued overnight contact unsafe, although limited unsupervised daytime contact was proportionate.
6. The appeal concerned interim contact only. The decision was not intended to bind or influence the judge conducting fact-finding or the later welfare hearing.
7. As to publication, the application to name the father and identify his specific employment was not varied at this stage. The parties had inadequate notice, and the authorities concerning naming perpetrators followed completed fact-finding hearings. The child’s Article 8 rights and best interests also required fuller evaluation.

• High Court (Family Division): appeal from the order of Recorder Sharp KC dated 24 March 2025. Permission to appeal was granted by Harrison J on 3 April 2025. The appeal was allowed and overnight contact was replaced by limited unsupervised daytime contact.